Ex Parte Karamatic et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2016

12675513 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/675,513 10/20/2010
46726 7590 08/31/2016
BSH Home Appliances Corporation
100 Bosch Boulevard
NEW BERN, NC 28562
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christian Karamatic
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2007P00938WOUS 4868
EXAMINER
SHIRSAT, VIVEK K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3749
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
MBX-NBN-IntelProp@bshg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTIAN KARAMATIC and ANDREAS MAYLE
Appeal 2014-009541 1,2
Application 12/675,513
Technology Center 3700
Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, JAMES A. WORTH, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 15-25, 27-29, 31, and 33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Specification ("Spec.," filed Feb. 26,
2010), Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Feb. 28, 2014), and Reply Brief
("Reply Br.," filed Sept. 2, 2014), as well as the Examiner's Answer
("Answer," mailed Aug. 1, 2014).
2 According to Appellants, "[t]he real party in interest is BSH Bosch und
Siemens Hausgerate GmbH." Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2014-009541
Application 12/675,513
According to Appellants, "[t]he object underlying the invention is[,]
in particular[,] to provide an operator control for a domestic appliance, said
operator control comprising a control knob which is connected to an
actuation mechanism by way of an actuating shaft and includes at least one
indicator unit, and avoiding [electrical] contacts prone to corrosion."
Spec. 2, 11. 13-16. Claims 15, 27, and 28 are the only independent claims.
See Appeal Br., Claims App. We reproduce claim 15, below, as
representative of the appealed claims.
Id.
15. An operator control for a domestic appliance, the
operator control comprising:
an actuator shaft penetrating through a cover plate;
an actuator beneath or behind the cover plate and actuable
by the actuator shaft;
a control knob on the actuator shaft with an indicator; and
an induction coil behind or beneath the cover plate for
inductively transferring energy to operate the indicator on the
control knob.
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART3
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
claims 15-17, 19-25, 27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hurrle (US 2005/0067268 Al, pub. Mar. 31, 2005), Baier
3 We note that the Answer withdraws rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
which the Examiner made in the Final Office Action mailed November 7,
2013. See Answer 12.
2
Appeal2014-009541
Application 12/675,513
(US 2007/0181410 Al, pub. Aug. 9, 2007), and Schilling (US 6,838,785 B2,
iss. Jan. 4, 2005)4 ;
claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hurrle, Baier,
Schilling, and Wilsdorf (US 2008/0236563 Al, pub. Oct. 2, 2008) 5; and
claims 29, 31, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Hurrle, Baier, Schilling, and Home (US 2005/0017210 Al, pub. Jan. 27,
2005)6.
See Answer 2-12.
ANALYSIS
Based on our review of the record, including the Examiner's Answer
and Appellants' Appeal and Reply Briefs (see Appeal Br. 7-77; see Reply
Br. 3--4), we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 15-25,
27-29, 31, and 33.
Independent claim 15 recites, among other limitations, "[a Jn operator
control for a domestic appliance [which comprises] ... an actuator shaft
penetrating through a cover plate[,] ... and an induction coil behind or
beneath the cover plate for inductively transferring energy to operate the
indicator on the control knob." Appeal Br., Claims App. Independent
claims 27 and 28 recites similar features. See id. Essentially, Appellants
argue that the Examiner's proposed combination of references is improper
4 We note that although the rejection refers to claim 26, that claim is not
pending. See, e.g., Appeal Br., Claims App.
5 It appears that the Examiner erroneously omits Schilling from the list of
references used in the rejection.
6 We note that although the rejection refers to claims 30, 32, and 34, those
claims are not pending. See, e.g., Appeal Br., Claims App.
3
Appeal2014-009541
Application 12/675,513
because "Baier appears to show the following two different embodiments:
(1) no penetration of the glass ceramic plate ... ; and (2) penetration of the
glass ceramic plate with electrical conductors that also penetrate the glass
ceramic plate." Appeal Br. 8. Further, it is only Baier's embodiment in
which there is no penetration of the plate which uses an induction coil
beneath the cover plate as claimed. See id. Thus, "without the teachings of
the present [a ]pplication, it would not have been obvious to use a non-
penetrating technology such as that in Baier with the device of Hurrle
because Hurrle penetrates the glass ceramic plate." Id. "It is only the
present [a ]pplication that teaches using a penetrating actuator shaft in
combination with inductive energy transfer [using a coil beneath the cover
plate] to operate an indicator." Id. at 9.
In KSR, the Supreme Court discussed circumstances in which a patent
might be determined to be obvious without an explicit teaching, suggestion,
or motivation provided by the prior art. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398 (2007). In particular, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that "[t]he
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." Id. at 416.
Further, the Court stated that when considering obviousness "the analysis
need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of
the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id.
at 418. In this case, the Examiner relies on Schilling as a reason to use
Baier' s induction coil beneath a plate with Hurrle' s arrangement that
includes a shaft penetrating the plate, to provide the predictable result of
avoiding an arrangement with "electrical leads of contacts, which can easily
4
Appeal2014-009541
Application 12/675,513
become dirty during the operation of an electrical appliance, which, [as a
result,] increases operating safety and comfort." See Answer 14, citing
Schilling col. 2, 11. 63-67 (internal quotations omitted). Thus, despite
Appellants' argument to the contrary, the Examiner's proposed modification
amounts to the use of a known arrangement to yield a known and predictable
result.
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the rejections of independent
claims 15, 27, and 28, which, as stated above, include similar recitations and
which Appellants argue together. Further, we sustain the obviousness
rejections of the remaining claims, each of which depends from one of the
independent claims. See Appeal Br., Claims App. Appellants argue the
dependent claims are allowable for the same reasons as the independent
claims and argue these claims are allowable because no other reference
remedies the independent claims' rejections. See id. at 7-11.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 15-25,
27-29, 31, and 33.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
5